'Horrifying' Footage Shows IDF Killing Two Gazans, Burying Their Bodies With a Bulldozer
'Horrifying' Footage Shows IDF Killing Two Gazans, Burying Their Bodies With a Bulldozer
"When the Israeli army can do these things and get away with it, it can only then do more of it knowing that it will not meet any punishment," said one analyst.
Video footage broadcast Wednesday by Al Jazeera shows Israeli soldiers gunning down two Palestinians on the coast of northern Gaza, even as one of them waves what appears to be a piece of white fabric. The video then shows Israeli soldiers burying the bodies with a bulldozer.
Richard Falk, former United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, toldAl Jazeera that the footage provides "vivid confirmation of continuing Israeli atrocities" and spotlights the "unambiguous character of Israeli atrocities that are being carried out on a daily basis."
"The eyes and ears of the world have been assaulted in real-time by this form of genocidal behavior," said Falk. "It is a shocking reality that there has been no adverse reaction from the liberal democracies in the West. It is a shameful moment."
You're viewing part of a thread.
I was describing a single law I would support that would weaken economic imperialism. I was not saying that the law I proposed somehow solved it or anything, and that actually contradicts where I said I supported some. And please explain the difference between ambivalence/neutrality and hands-off.
A proper military-industrial complex requires a huge degree of coordination and stability across multiple independent sectors over many years. Only a large state is capable of managing the entire thing over the long periods of time necessary. An aircraft carrier battlefleet is a simply massive undertaking, requiring the efforts of millions of people over decades.
And please explain the difference between ambivalence/neutrality and hands-off.
Sure. In this context, 'ambivalence' means having an internal inconsistency, whereas a true-neutral system would give no preference for a particular relationship. I mean it as liberalism claiming to support voluntary engagement and mutual consent in relations, but is ambivalent (i.e. internally inconsistent) about the relative power/influence between 'consenting' parties, to the extent that one party may not have any choice but to enter into a contract. Even though liberalism depends on the concept of mutual agreement, it has no answer to one party having outsized leverage against another, especially since its alleged benefit is mutual consent as a system of self-regulation.
It is the difference between 'social contracts' as a neutral observation of power dynamics generally, and 'liberalism' as an idealistic system of self governance.
Only a large state is capable of managing the entire thing over the long periods of time necessary
Maybe if you take the US military as a standard, but even the founders envisioned a military comprised of independent militias. Besides, anarchosyndicalism traditionally acknowledges the need for a centralized government to ensure mutual security, even if they have strong feelings against a standing military the size of the current US one (with which I agree).
Anyway, I only posed that question to gauge your understanding of liberalism, since it seemed as if you understood it as something like "democracy". I wanted to see what you thought the difference between liberal democracy and social democracy was. I haven't been convinced you understand
Ah, that's a fair distinction I suppose. That's why I think we need more laws to limit how our companies are able to engage with less developed partners.
Even the British and French militaries have carriers, but all are large states. So long as the institution can coordinate the long-term strategic cooperation necessary to bring the pieces together, then I have nothing against it. It serves its primary purpose in this case.
I would describe a liberal democracy differing from a social democracy in the direction and degree of investment. Liberalism, as I said earlier, is philosophically hands-off. Ambivalent or neutral work fine as descriptors imo as well. You could say uncaring, if you liked. I do not really see the social contracts and mutual consent as envisioned by the people that wrote about it as being particularly real, in the minds of the people. And since they democratically control what happens, those don't really end up existing.
Social democracy is focused more on equity for the populace. It does take those concepts more seriously.
Fair enough.
I'll stand by my earlier assertion, that liberalism is anything but neutral, perhaps not in the way that you understand it as being hands off.
In practice, liberal states end up being self-serving (as liberalism encourages), and since capital is allowed to accumulate, the state apparatus ends up being used in pursuit of capital interests. Even if 'hands off' is accurate when it comes to domestic economic policy (it is usually anything but), at the Geopolitical level that power dynamic is amplified.
Which is why people argue Israel is a vassel state: Israel's strategic function (to the US's economic interests) is to project power in the oil-rich middle east. It's why the US puts up with and runs cover for them even as they are objectively the aggressors in a lopsided conflict. Any other ally in any other conflict would have been given the boot at this point. They've clearly overshot defense and are squarely in genocide at this point. The US has every excuse to end that alliance, but they don't because they have financial interests through them.
The petroleum resources of the Middle East haven't been needed for a decade now, that understanding that held true for half a century has simply become out-of-date. All that remains is the commonalities, ethnically diverse democracies with a long tradition of cooperation. Which may soon come to an end, finally, though that would really infuriate our evangelical wing, which is a significant fraction of our entire population. I completely disagree that "any other ally would've gotten the boot". Look at Turkey's history with their eastern minorities. I'm sure I could think of more examples as well. Can you name a time we've ever, in our entire history, "booted" an ally for atrocities?
Self-serving I'll grant, I think that's somewhat inherent to liberalism as a concept. Liberty itself. Recall, my original comment noted a certain "liberty to oppress". We do not seriously challenge China over the oppression of their Muslims, we never seriously challenged the genocide in Rawanda, we didn't even seriously challenge South African apartheid without significant prodding. It's not liberty for everyone, it's liberty for those strong enough to seize it. People seem to want to project some sort of "goodness" onto the USA, and honestly, I don't think a typical middle-American wants that. As a democracy, if half of us don't want that, then... what? Recall, we would have let the world fall in WW2, had Pearl Harbor never happened.
This is why I don't strongly argue with people that claim liberalism naturally leans right, incidentally, I think it does. It has more in common, in American practice especially, with fascism than anything more leftist. This is one of the things that makes us so vulnerable to falling into actual full-blown fascism, as existed in the mid-20th century. The nastiest kind, that conquers land with the intention of keeping it, and exterminates people that get in the way.
Make no mistake, we are an extremely violent people, culturally. Look no further than our mass-media. It's up to us to reform our system in healthier ways, as our founders intended, before it's too late. Because when I say hands-off, it's hands-off our most animalistic natures sometimes, and lead poisoning on top of that. Political theorists really don't seem to get that, that many of us pine for the darkest days of our history.
This is why it's so incomprehensible and stupid, imo, that someone could seriously think something inherent in our liberal democracy stands against genocide. It doesn't, to the point that we could do some ourselves in the coming decades, after leaving NATO and aligning with Russia instead.
I completely disagree that “any other ally would’ve gotten the boot”. Look at Turkey’s history with their eastern minorities. I’m sure I could think of more examples as well. Can you name a time we’ve ever, in our entire history, “booted” an ally for atrocities?
Maybe I wasn't clear; those allies are only allies because of what they provide us, and what Israel provides us is control and influence over the middle east. They represent our interests in exchange for us propping them up as a regional power (e.g. a VASSEL state). Sometimes barons form their own alliances and rebel, but they are still barons in the first instance.
They would get the boot if their behavior is in misalignment with the US's interest, but coincidentally, genocide is not incomparable with what interests we have in the region. It's just a bit 'inconvenient' to our brand.
It’s not liberty for everyone, it’s liberty for those strong enough to seize it
Which is why it is not 'neutral', it quite consciously gives advantage to hierarchical structures outside the state.
It seems your definition of neutrality requires action and enforcement, while my definition requires inaction. Is there another distinction? Otherwise this is pointless semantics.
Yes, military alliances need to provide benefit for both parties. We have sufficient influence in the Middle East, though, with bases throughout Iraq and Syria, and other longstanding allies in the region like the Saudis and Kuwaitis. I know you believe this vassal state nonsense, but you don't have much evidence or strong reasoning to stand on here. Also note, that as a nuclear power, Israel would continue to exist after US withdrawal.
As an aside, do you concede that we no longer need the oil from the region? That's a key point. Our main hydrocarbon trading partner is Canada, now.
It seems your definition of neutrality requires action and enforcement, while my definition requires inaction. Is there another distinction? Otherwise this is pointless semantics.
It's not a semantic disagreement, it's a metaphysical one. A fundamental principle of philosophy is that no system is truly neutral, ALL systems advantage certain outcomes. Claiming a system as neutral is as ideological as claiming something as 'natural'. But rather than doubling down on my own perspective, I'll let William James put the debate to rest:
"Some years ago, being with a camping party in the mountains, I returned from a solitary ramble to find everyone engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute. The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel–a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree’s opposite side a human being was imagined to stand. This human witness tries to get sight of the squirrel by moving rapidly round the tree, but no matter how fast he goes, the squirrel moves as fast in the opposite direction, and always keeps the tree between himself and the man, so that never a glimpse of him is caught. The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: DOES THE MAN GO ROUND THE SQUIRREL OR NOT? He goes round the tree, sure enough, and the squirrel is on the tree; but does he go round the squirrel? In the unlimited leisure of the wilderness, discussion had been worn threadbare. Everyone had taken sides, and was obstinate; and the numbers on both sides were even. Each side, when I appeared, therefore appealed to me to make it a majority. Mindful of the scholastic adage that whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction, I immediately sought and found one, as follows: "Which party is right," I said, "depends on what you PRACTICALLY MEAN by ‘going round’ the squirrel. If you mean passing from the north of him to the east, then to the south, then to the west, and then to the north of him again, obviously the man does go round him, for he occupies these successive positions. But if on the contrary you mean being first in front of him, then on the right of him, then behind him, then on his left, and finally in front again, it is quite as obvious that the man fails to go round him, for by the compensating movements the squirrel makes, he keeps his belly turned towards the man all the time, and his back turned away. Make the distinction, and there is no occasion for any farther dispute. You are both right and both wrong according as you conceive the verb ‘to go round’ in one practical fashion or the other."
If you agree that liberalism advantages external power structures and enables the consolidation thereof then there remains no disagreement between us.
As an aside, do you concede that we no longer need the oil from the region? That’s a key point. Our main hydrocarbon trading partner is Canada, now.
A claim I never made. The geopolitical significance of the middle east is its large oil deposits, as well as its geographical proximity to major trade routes. Whether we source our own oil from there is immaterial to the point I was making.
I think you've illuminated a fundamental weakness of metaphysical debate. But regardless, as I recall we don't require the word neutral, we've come up with at least four that I'm personally fine with. Use whichever you like.
Yes, I agreed with that several comments ago. Liberalism distributes power among many institutions, from religious, to capital, to community, to state, etc. It allows these to perform actions that it will not perform. You could certainly call that advantage.
In what way is it immaterial whether we source our oil from there or not? Seems to be the very crux of the matter to me.
In what way is it immaterial whether we source our oil from there or not? Seems to be the very crux of the matter to me.
because our interest in the region isn't for oil for ourselves, it's influence over all the nations in the region, and that entire region revolves around the power that oil grants those countries.
Uh huh. I think you're just drifting into conspiracy theory land now. Regardless, our large amount of aid to Egypt give us significant influence over the Suez, and our multitude of other alliances and bases gives plenty of power for that, if it actually was the goal. We could lose any three and still have massive power projection through the region.